I think the only character I truly hate is Danny St John. I have annoyances with some characters, and there's characters I'm not a… morell that fond of, sure, but there's almost none that I truly hate besides Danny. He's just an all-around sadistic, psychotic asshole with no redeeming qualities of any sort. There's not really a twinge of sympathy to his character to understand where he's coming from or what made him that way, unlike Andy and Brenda, who actually seem to have some basic strand of humanity left, even if just barely. He doesn't even have funny lines to make up for him being an asshole like Larry, Troy or Randall do.

I would've said Arvo, but apparnetly, shooting a little girl and lying is okay just because you get bashed by someone.
It… more's not "ok" but it is sort of unfair to hold characters to certain standards that people do not hold others to. I noticed what Arvo did was similar to what Christa did in the first episode of season 2. She killed an unarmed child who was going to surrender once seeing her dead lover's corpse before her. I don't remember anyone saying a word about that. Keep in mind Arvo is younger than Christa is and his mind is not completely developed. He's immature, rash and still in a state of grief

Arvo's back was turned as his sister turned. The way he saw it, Clementine shot her as she was trying to get up after already being shot. That's how it's comparable, I just explained this. How would you know you would never do something like that unless you've been in that exact situation?

Michelle killed Christas boyfriend/father of her unborn child, that's why Christa shot her.
How is that comparable to Arvo shoo… moreting Clem because Clem... Idk... existed???
How fucking old is Arvo??? I'm seventeen and I would never think shooting an eleven year old is alright.

Arvo's back was turned as his sister turned. The way he saw it, Clementine shot her as she was trying to get up after already bein… moreg shot. That's how it's comparable, I just explained this. How would you know you would never do something like that unless you've been in that exact situation?

Disregarding the fact that if you take out a couple of lines alluding to S1 from her, you can replace her with Becca and little would change.

That's what Telltale's biggest problem was with S2. It all stemmed from Clem being the main character. They couldn't have made her as the deuteragonist again because S2's big marketing strategy likely all relied on poising Clementine as the center of the season with dumb hashtags such as #IAmClementine. Telltale just needed to have her as the main character to stir up gaming journalism from her already established popularity. Being able to control her in the season made you lose any sense of responsibility you had from the first season because you can do whatever you want with her now. It doesn't matter how you acted in S1 towards Clem, because you as the player choose as her in S2. She became a blank slate for the player to project onto. If she had a prominent role in S2 other than being the main protagonist, we probably could've seen how Clem reacted to a lot of things that the player would have chose, based on her relationship with Lee in S1.

I don't expect characters to stay the same, but it's hard for me to come to the fact that S1 and S2 Clem are the same person. Anyone could make the argument of "PEOPLE CHANGE IT'S WALKING DEAD, GUIZE!", but when you hide Clem's development into whoever the hell she is in S2 under a time skip, that's a poor excuse for character development. She doesn't attain any sort of personality traits from S1 Clem. Instead, we get this character who hardly seems to act her age and acts instead as a generic zombie killing badass. She's not Clem anymore, she's this random video game character devoid of any personality. It's sad to see how Clem fans mainly talk about how "epic" and "badass" she is, because that's the only thing even remotely distinguishable about her.

Yeah, Christa shooting Michelle was rash, but so was Michelle's behavior that led to her death. She wasn't much of a child, about as much as you could call Arvo or Russell children (late teens? That's still old enough to make responsible decisions). I never downright hated Michelle - weird since omid was my favorite character - but she wasn't careful enough attacking people she didn't know and murdered a living person because of it. She was nothing but a stranger to Christa which was why she killed her so quickly.

The difference with arvo is that 1) Clementine definitely is a child with less experience and development as Michelle, 2) killing his sister only happened in self defense once she was zombified which arvo should have figured out really, and 3) Clementine is not a stranger to arvo, and given player actions in the game, can even try to act like a friend to him and show him mercy. He had much more time to deal with grief and get to know his loved ones' "murderer" than Christa did, and he still chose to shoot a child much younger than Michelle.

I would've said Arvo, but apparnetly, shooting a little girl and lying is okay just because you get bashed by someone.
It… more's not "ok" but it is sort of unfair to hold characters to certain standards that people do not hold others to. I noticed what Arvo did was similar to what Christa did in the first episode of season 2. She killed an unarmed child who was going to surrender once seeing her dead lover's corpse before her. I don't remember anyone saying a word about that. Keep in mind Arvo is younger than Christa is and his mind is not completely developed. He's immature, rash and still in a state of grief

Season 1: Danny St. John. The guy gave me the creeps the whole episode, and that's not even counting the cannibals thing.

Season 2: Troy. Similar to Danny in that he gave me the creeps, and he was a huge asshole even to children. Apparently there's also unused story behind him sexually abusing Jane. I'm not a huge fan of Jane either but nobody deserves that.

I don't really count them as villains as much as henchmen. If I had to pick someone from the group, then Larry from season 1 and Jane/Kenny from season 2, mostly for how I think they negatively impacted the story of the second season rather than the characters themselves.

expects you to betray other people:
no that s mike
also luke had a busted leg which was the only thing he could have used to escape the ice and since he could barely move that leg i dont think he would have survived anyways

I'm sorry, but I do not accept your opinion. Hate because of this? Clementine she a small child, small children are transformed very quickly emotional . After all she saw, it naturally will become a sad girl. She has feelings, she really not a robot, she a lovely girl and strong, I greatly appreciate her. You talk even in malice. Without Clementine, will be very boring in my opinion. This specially main character she a little girl. You can not see the beauty. Clementine girl gorgeous and spectacular. She has personality, she BADASS after everything she had experienced and that's natural. she a masterpiece for me. Interesting, impressive and act more mature, after all she has experienced, it is very logical. This tiny girl about the age of 11, and I really admire and appreciate her. she 11, looks like 8, and a small low - but! she BADASS mentally strong and more than anyone else. i am not agree with you and think you're seeing things superficially. sorry for my English.

Disregarding the fact that if you take out a couple of lines alluding to S1 from her, you can replace her with Becca and little wo… moreuld change.
That's what Telltale's biggest problem was with S2. It all stemmed from Clem being the main character. They couldn't have made her as the deuteragonist again because S2's big marketing strategy likely all relied on poising Clementine as the center of the season with dumb hashtags such as #IAmClementine. Telltale just needed to have her as the main character to stir up gaming journalism from her already established popularity. Being able to control her in the season made you lose any sense of responsibility you had from the first season because you can do whatever you want with her now. It doesn't matter how you acted in S1 towards Clem, because you as the player choose as her in S2. She became a blank slate for the player to project onto. If she had a prominent role in S2 other th… [view original content]

You have many good points. I like her, but I do agree with you! She sort of became this stale, customizable avatar in S2. When you compare her to S1, I also find it hard to believe that they're supposed to be the same person.

Disregarding the fact that if you take out a couple of lines alluding to S1 from her, you can replace her with Becca and little wo… moreuld change.
That's what Telltale's biggest problem was with S2. It all stemmed from Clem being the main character. They couldn't have made her as the deuteragonist again because S2's big marketing strategy likely all relied on poising Clementine as the center of the season with dumb hashtags such as #IAmClementine. Telltale just needed to have her as the main character to stir up gaming journalism from her already established popularity. Being able to control her in the season made you lose any sense of responsibility you had from the first season because you can do whatever you want with her now. It doesn't matter how you acted in S1 towards Clem, because you as the player choose as her in S2. She became a blank slate for the player to project onto. If she had a prominent role in S2 other th… [view original content]

You have many good points. I like her, but I do agree with you! She sort of became this stale, customizable avatar in S2. When you compare her to S1, I also find it hard to believe that they're supposed to be the same person.

He had much more time to deal with to deal with grief and get to know his loved ones "murdered"

Did you read the part where I said his mind is still not fully developed? Scientists have proven that the mind doesn't fully develop until the age of 21.

killing his sister only happened in self defense once she was zombified which arvo should have figured out really,

Yeah I mentioned this too. Kenny grabbed him before he saw his sister turn. He didn't know she was dead yet. How was he supposed to know if 1. He didn't know she was dead. And 2. He didn't see her turn. Coupled with the fact that he doesn't know what the group was capable of

Eh, the two still aren't totally comparable.
Yeah, Christa shooting Michelle was rash, but so was Michelle's behavior that led … moreto her death. She wasn't much of a child, about as much as you could call Arvo or Russell children (late teens? That's still old enough to make responsible decisions). I never downright hated Michelle - weird since omid was my favorite character - but she wasn't careful enough attacking people she didn't know and murdered a living person because of it. She was nothing but a stranger to Christa which was why she killed her so quickly.
The difference with arvo is that 1) Clementine definitely is a child with less experience and development as Michelle, 2) killing his sister only happened in self defense once she was zombified which arvo should have figured out really, and 3) Clementine is not a stranger to arvo, and given player actions in the game, can even try to act like a friend to him and … [view original content]

You haven't been through was he has been, so you don't have a way of knowing that you wouldn't be up for revenge against the girl that, in your eyes, killed your sister right after you saved her with CPR.

To explain that, let's go back to S1 for a second. The way I always viewed the character of Lee was not as a blank slate, nor as a fully fleshed out character in his own right, I saw him as a hybrid of both; a character were both Lee and the player coexist, if that makes sense. Lee definitely has his own character and personality, along with his own mannerisms and quirks, but at the same time, he's not a fully fleshed out and realized character. And that's where the player comes in, helping to fill out the rest. He has aspects of the blank slate archetype, but he also has enough foundation to stand as a character in his own right. But the main catch is that neither side works without the other's input; that's part of the reason why things like a silent playthrough tend to be extremely awkward.

When I think of a true blank slate, I think of a silent protagonist as the best example; the only personality they ever have -- if any -- is through text options. The only backstory they have -- if any -- is what the player is expressly told, either through the game itself, or more from the supplementary content of the game (let's say for the sake of example, Chell from Portal. In-game, she's just a nameless test subject. But with the various comics and interviews and so forth from Valve, there's more of a picture painted as to who she is). The physical aspects of their character are practically nil. They don't have expressions, mannerisms, or the idiosyncrasies that the characters around them do. The only physical interaction they have with the world is through the player's actions. For better or for worse, Lee and Clementine most definitely have those defining characteristics. Even scenes as simple as having them trip or stumble denotes more interaction and presence within their world beyond the player's input.

Going off of that, Lee and Clementine are on in the same; character-player hybrids that share a mutual relationship between each other, one benefiting from the other's input. Now, the only problem that I'll admit is that the balance between Clementine and the player is more skewered in S2, in comparison to how Lee in S1 is handled. But still not enough for her to reach the level of being considered a blank slate. She still very much has her own fundamental aspects that define her character, and I'd argue that those aspects aren't just superficial, operating at a surface level. To say she doesn't show as much emotional peaks as she does in S1, that I can agree with. But she is most definitely not blank, either. She has a personality that isn't entirely determined via player responses, and she has mannerisms and quirks that help define the more minute aspects of her character; facial expressions, body language, tics and other idiosyncrasies, etc.

And maybe it's a matter of opinion, but I wouldn't classify the aforementioned aspects as surface-level, either. Namely the more physical aspects like expressions, which are commonly glazed over, especially in the realm of games. They both offer and suggest deeper insight into the inner workings of a character; they have the potential and capacity to tell you far more than a spoken line of dialogue could. And we're not talking the simple aspects of physical expressions like happy and sad faces, we're talking even further than that; eyes, dilation of pupils, hand gestures, posture, all of that stuff. Clementine has a lot of that, more than is realized. She has various moments that suggest her state in the world; an uprooted child basically forced to be an adult, despite not really knowing how to be one. You have poses and postures that suggest a childlike innocence to her, but at the same time, are hardened and weary. You have a kind of conflict in some of her movements, where they come off as a front, or as someone trying to go through the motions, though they don't really understand what they mean; for example, when she's dealing with Carver in episode 2, there's a scene where she's trying to lean against a counter all awkwardly. On surface-level, that just seems like an adorably awkward little scene, right? But it can suggest so much more to her character beyond that level; an attempt to fit in, to emulate the people around her, despite not fully understanding what she's doing. You have her adopt more negative bodily expressions; crossing her arms, which usually has negative connotations, suggesting unease or intolerance, for example. And Clementine has many more scenes like that peppered throughout the season. I've said it before, but Telltale does a fantastic job with nonverbal ques, and are really good at establishing characters in that way, making them distinct and providing a 'voice' to their character in ways beyond their actual voice. Clementine is no exception. Lee was no exception. Bigby's no exception. Rhys, Fiona, Sasha and Vaughn are no exceptions. All the GoT characters are no exception. Minecraft is... well, actually sort of an exception, now that I think of it. But that's mostly because it doesn't allow for as intricate nonverbal cues as their other games do, for obvious reasons. Maybe save for Reuben, who they actually did a great job giving character to through only a series of oinks (which is helped by Dee Bradley-Baker, who is pretty much brilliant when it comes to vocalization-related stuff). But back on track; strictly from a nonverbal perspective, I think they have Clementine down pat.

Now the parts where they fall a bit short would be the more vocal, direct aspects of her character. I mentioned above how the balance between Clementine and the player feel a bit skewered, and these would be the parts in question. To start, I have no real trouble with the performance itself, I'd say most of the faults come more from the writing and dialogue aspects. Which in all honesty is understandable, since writing a young girl as the playable protagonist of a game that deals with interpersonal drama between various characters is pretty fucking hard, to put it as bluntly as possible. Some of the lines themselves feel a bit out there, or a bit too well-versed for Clementine. Some of the things she says sound a bit too... mature, I suppose? The sentence structure, vocabulary and all that. Then there's other times where I think they do a great job at combining the childlike aspects of her speech into the more mature, weary outlook she's adopted over time (her trying to talk to Sarah in the trailer park is my go-to example of this, personally. Would you look at that, Amid The Ruins actually did something pretty good!). Another point that is similarly hit-and-miss are the dialogue options themselves. With Lee, they wanted to make all of the options feel believable in regards to Lee's character. They weren't about trying to cover all the bases (Yes, no, neutral), but about capturing Lee's mental process, more or less. Your dialogue options are like Lee's inner thoughts. Playing into combining Lee's character with the player's input would be those times when you have dialogue options that all more or less say the same thing. Now some people see this as restrictive, or as an attempt to pigeonhole a player into a specific exchange, and yes, I can agree that sometimes it does just that. But most of the time, this is actually really effective at establishing Lee as his own character; the player has input, but Lee already has a specific disposition going into a conversation/topic.

However, probably the most helpful aspect of all of this is the fact that Lee doesn't have any pre-established characteristics decided by the player. He has a pre-established character, but they were not the result of the player. Then you have Clementine. The first season revolved around her and Lee, and how your choices as Lee effected Clementine's mindset and overall character. And that's where S2 hits a road bump; sometimes, dialogue options at their core work in opposition to Clementine's character from S1. And that is an inevitable problem of making her the playable character. Now it's not fair to fully blame the writers or designers here, but they do play a role nonetheless in these contradictions, even if it's small. Some of the options given to Clementine don't line up with what she would have thought or said during S1. Some of these feel like natural developments, viewpoints that have understandably changed over time due to experience, like Clementine's trust in others slowly diminishing, such as when she first meets Luke and Pete, and is able to be more vague and wary of them than she would have been in S1. But then there's others that feel too abrupt. For example, Clementine always defending Ben in S1, then if you decided to go with Nick, she can make a disparaging comment towards Nick in reference to Ben. That doesn't feel like a thought that changed due to the shit she went through, that seems more like she decided she didn't really like Ben anymore, with no real reason or explanation as to why her opinion changed. Then there's the rare dialogue options that are actually tailored to the decisions made in season 1. One small example would be when Kenny asks Clementine what Lee would say in NGB; the dialogue choices change depending on what Lee said in the first season. The third type is optimal; what the season needed more of. The first type is also interesting, and suggests character growth in a more subtle fashion. But the second type is the problematic type, which the second season unfortunately has a bit more than it should. However, even in spite of this, it never felt like enough to destroy the experience for me, nor taint the character of Clementine like it seems to have done to some people here. Nor do I feel it's enough to create enough of a divide between S1 and S2 Clem that they could be seen as two separate characters. With all due respect though, I can understand why that would be the case for some people. But I digress, this part in particular is more a matter of opinion than anything, so there's not much to argue about here.

So yeah, overall I feel that a majority of the aspects regarding Clementine's character were handled well, namely in the nonverbal department, while there were definite slip-ups in others, but not enough to fully ruin or taint her character. Enough to cause some noticeable discrepancy, but not to the point where S1 and S2 Clem are entirely different characters.

One point I can agree with is that most of the problems all stem from her being a playable character. I don't think making her the protagonist was a bad idea necessarily, but there were a lot of challenges that came with the decision to do so. It's just difficult to strike a balance between sticking to her established character whilst simultaneously giving the player control over her and her actions. So I'll admit to this much; she works much better as a secondary character than as a playable one. But in all honesty, if they did decide to keep her as the playable character for S3, it wouldn't be a super big deal to me, personally. I'm still willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that they could improve in the areas where S2 fell short, and make Clementine work well as a playable character. Though maybe I'm just too optimistic or idealistic, I dunno.

Also, as a final final note, I did not plan on this post becoming a novella, so I apologies in advance for this long-ass post explaining my (hopefully coherent) reasoning on this topic (which I probably care too much about to begin with)

You have many good points. I like her, but I do agree with you! She sort of became this stale, customizable avatar in S2. When you compare her to S1, I also find it hard to believe that they're supposed to be the same person.

Michelle didn't even want to kill another person. You can see the look of regret and shock in her eyes as soon as she realized that she had killed someone. She could've thought that it was a walker coming inside the room, which would've been much more likely in that situation.

As Arvo saw it, Clementine killed his sister and she didn't even blink. Of course, we know that she was a walker already, but he didn't. Someone that's old enough to kill his last family member is old enough not to receive mercy.

Eh, the two still aren't totally comparable.
Yeah, Christa shooting Michelle was rash, but so was Michelle's behavior that led … moreto her death. She wasn't much of a child, about as much as you could call Arvo or Russell children (late teens? That's still old enough to make responsible decisions). I never downright hated Michelle - weird since omid was my favorite character - but she wasn't careful enough attacking people she didn't know and murdered a living person because of it. She was nothing but a stranger to Christa which was why she killed her so quickly.
The difference with arvo is that 1) Clementine definitely is a child with less experience and development as Michelle, 2) killing his sister only happened in self defense once she was zombified which arvo should have figured out really, and 3) Clementine is not a stranger to arvo, and given player actions in the game, can even try to act like a friend to him and … [view original content]

Yes, I did see the part where you said his mind is not fully developed, but I'm saying his situation did not excuse him shooting an eleven year old girl. Someone his age should still recognize that, by your reasoning, Clementine was not fully developed enough to be in charge of her actions. We don't even know how old he us, he could be 21 for all we know. I would place him anywhere between 17 and early 20s, which should still be old enough to be responsible for your actions. I think if Omid were shot by an eleven year old Michelle, Christa would have at least thought twice about killing her. This is less a difference in development and more a difference in character. Maybe if Arvo was around Becca's age around 15 or 16 I would agree with you.

I think Arvo should have realized his sister was a zombie because she was fatally shot and he couldn't seem to revive her. Also, if you didn't steal the medicine from him, and continue to be merciful, he should at least have some doubts about Clem's intentions in killing her sister. But my point that he should have not shot a little girl and that the two situations are not entirely comparable still stands if he never came to the realization.

He had much more time to deal with to deal with grief and get to know his loved ones "murdered"
Did you read the part wher… moree I said his mind is still not fully developed? Scientists have proven that the mind doesn't fully develop until the age of 21.
killing his sister only happened in self defense once she was zombified which arvo should have figured out really,
Yeah I mentioned this too. Kenny grabbed him before he saw his sister turn. He didn't know she was dead yet. How was he supposed to know if 1. He didn't know she was dead. And 2. He didn't see her turn. Coupled with the fact that he doesn't know what the group was capable of

Michelle didn't even want to kill another person. You can see the look of regret and shock in her eyes as soon as she realized tha… moret she had killed someone. She could've thought that it was a walker coming inside the room, which would've been much more likely in that situation.
As Arvo saw it, Clementine killed his sister and she didn't even blink. Of course, we know that she was a walker already, but he didn't. Someone that's old enough to kill his last family member is old enough not to receive mercy.

I was writing that from Arvo's perspective, not mine. I personally don't agree with that principle. Look, all I'm doing here is trying to understand his point of view and explain that to others. I still dislike Arvo for what he did—after all, he shot us, in a way—but I really think all actions are understandable.

Take Michelle, now that we were talking about her. I comprehend why she shot Omid, but that doesn't mean that I dislike Christa for shooting her. I don't like when villains are dehumanized.

Someone that's old enough to kill his last family member is old enough not to receive mercy.
Well okay that's the same reasoning that justifies Christa's murder of Michelle, whether Michelle intended to or not.

Season 1: Danny St. John. The guy gave me the creeps the whole episode, and that's not even counting the cannibals thing.
Seaso… moren 2: Troy. Similar to Danny in that he gave me the creeps, and he was a huge asshole even to children. Apparently there's also unused story behind him sexually abusing Jane. I'm not a huge fan of Jane either but nobody deserves that.
I don't really count them as villains as much as henchmen. If I had to pick someone from the group, then Larry from season 1 and Jane/Kenny from season 2, mostly for how I think they negatively impacted the story of the second season rather than the characters themselves.

I wasn't dehumanizing anyone, I was just pointing out how the situations were different. I already said I didn't hate Michelle but that her getting killed like that was more understandable than what Arvo did. I also don't completely hate Arvo but find less sympathy for his situation than Christa's because a preteen child is involved.

I was writing that from Arvo's perspective, not mine. I personally don't agree with that principle. Look, all I'm doing here is tr… moreying to understand his point of view and explain that to others. I still dislike Arvo for what he did—after all, he shot us, in a way—but I really think all actions are understandable.
Take Michelle, now that we were talking about her. I comprehend why she shot Omid, but that doesn't mean that I dislike Christa for shooting her. I don't like when villains are dehumanized.

I wasn't dehumanizing anyone, I was just pointing out how the situations were different. I already said I didn't hate Michelle but… more that her getting killed like that was more understandable than what Arvo did. I also don't completely hate Arvo but find less sympathy for his situation than Christa's because a preteen child is involved.

Molly just didn't appeal to me. She would have left Lee and Kenny to the walkers if Clementine hadn't been with them when they first met. Back at the mansion later the way she bragged about "giving Lee a beating down at the river" or "saving his ass", calling Vernon a fossil (i actually found that amusing but was disrespectful), she didn't care that Clementine was missing around the house or at the least could have been nice to Lee about it instead of "im not her keeper" even if that was true. How she also witheld the fact that she used to be in Crawford, hard to like people who lie or keep things from the group. Just all about Molly generally i just wasn't a big fan of hers. I think shes extremely similar to Jane to be honest